Aniket Shah, global head of sustainability and transformation strategies at Jefferies Group, said on the 2nd that the practice of some investors blacklisting space exploration technology companies due to corporate governance issues alone is too simplistic and lacks data support, which may cause investors to miss out on long-term financial benefits. In an interview with the media, Shah pointed out that there is a trend in the current market that categorizes good governance models; this view is too rigid. He stressed that the available data does not clearly prove that the separation of the chairman and CEO always brings better results. If investors mechanically apply such standards, they may make wrong investment decisions. Recently, institutional investors from New York to Copenhagen have expressed strong concerns about SpaceX's governance structure. Critics point out that SpaceX founder Elon Musk holds more than 80% of the company's voting power and combines the CEO, chief technology officer, and chairman. This unprecedented control structure was described by some pension funds as “disastrous,” and even blacklisted the company as an investment. New York City Auditor General Mark Levine also said earlier that Musk's control of SpaceX represents a new level of disregard for the rights of ordinary shareholders. In response to the fluctuation in SpaceX's stock price since its listing, Shah believes it is far-fetched to blame it on corporate governance issues. He said that the recent performance of SpaceX's stock price more reflects the market's overall reassessment of the artificial intelligence sector and is not directly related to corporate governance issues. Shah further pointed out that rigid governance standards have caused many investors to miss out on historic wealth opportunities. He used Meta Platforms and Tesla as examples. The two companies were also highly controversial at the beginning of their listing due to their dual ownership structure and high concentration of founders, but since listing, their stock prices have risen by more than 1,300% and about 27,000%, respectively. He believes that the current ESG investment sector should learn lessons and avoid using a checklist approach to complex corporate governance issues. Referring to investments in the field of artificial intelligence, Shah said that compared to formal governance structures, he is more concerned about AI companies' ability to interact with government policies, including their role in national security affairs and their ability to cope with rapidly changing regulatory environments. He believes that in the current regulatory environment, the country is inseparable from the future development of AI technology; this is a more substantial “governance link.”

Aniket Shah, global head of sustainability and transformation strategies at Jefferies Group, said on the 2nd that the practice of some investors blacklisting space exploration technology companies due to corporate governance issues alone is too simplistic and lacks data support, which may cause investors to miss out on long-term financial benefits. In an interview with the media, Shah pointed out that there is a trend in the current market that categorizes good governance models; this view is too rigid. He stressed that the available data does not clearly prove that the separation of the chairman and CEO always brings better results. If investors mechanically apply such standards, they may make wrong investment decisions. Recently, institutional investors from New York to Copenhagen have expressed strong concerns about SpaceX's governance structure. Critics point out that SpaceX founder Elon Musk holds more than 80% of the company's voting power and combines the CEO, chief technology officer, and chairman. This unprecedented control structure was described by some pension funds as “disastrous,” and even blacklisted the company as an investment. New York City Auditor General Mark Levine also said earlier that Musk's control of SpaceX represents a new level of disregard for the rights of ordinary shareholders. In response to the fluctuation in SpaceX's stock price since its listing, Shah believes it is far-fetched to blame it on corporate governance issues. He said that the recent performance of SpaceX's stock price more reflects the market's overall reassessment of the artificial intelligence sector and is not directly related to corporate governance issues. Shah further pointed out that rigid governance standards have caused many investors to miss out on historic wealth opportunities. He used Meta Platforms and Tesla as examples. The two companies were also highly controversial at the beginning of their listing due to their dual ownership structure and high concentration of founders, but since listing, their stock prices have risen by more than 1,300% and about 27,000%, respectively. He believes that the current ESG investment sector should learn lessons and avoid using a checklist approach to complex corporate governance issues. Referring to investments in the field of artificial intelligence, Shah said that compared to formal governance structures, he is more concerned about AI companies' ability to interact with government policies, including their role in national security affairs and their ability to cope with rapidly changing regulatory environments. He believes that in the current regulatory environment, the country is inseparable from the future development of AI technology; this is a more substantial “governance link.”